NO ID REQUIRED TO VOTE! Guarantee Voter Fraud

Leer en Español

The Incredible Voter ID Controversy in America: An Analysis of the Arguments

Kamala Harris OPPOSES LAWS REQUIRING ID TO VOTE while requiring ID to attend her campaign events.

Joe Biden stated that he strongly opposes the requirement of ID to vote because (according to his mental incapacity) "safeguards are already in place to prevent non-citizens from voting."

Obama's BIG LIE since 2014: "I want to be clear: I am not opposed to reasonable attempts to protect the vote. We understand that there must be rules," Obama said. "BUT I DECLARE MYSELF AGAINST REQUIRING AN ID THAT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS DON'T HAVE."

"Unfortunately, many Americans have voted and will vote for internal enemies who oppose the ID requirement to vote."

The Current Debate

Historically, the issue of voter ID has been a topic of debate in the United States for many years. The debate intensified in the 2000s, with growing concerns about electoral fraud and the need to ensure the security of the electoral process. Proponents of voter ID laws argue that requiring ID is a commonsense measure that helps prevent fraud and ensures the integrity of elections. Democrats, on the other hand, argue ridiculously and maliciously that these laws disproportionately disenfranchise minority and low-income voters, who may face barriers to obtaining an ID.

It is incredible that in the main pillar of world democracy: the United States, the issue of voting ID has been and is generating a unique and far-fetched controversy in the developed and democratic world. While most modern democracies consider voter ID to be a basic, common-sense, non-controversial requirement, in the U.S. the democrats have made it a subject of intense political debate to manipulate elections to get votes in their favor, all the other justifications they put forward against the need to present an ID to vote are as FALSE as the votes originated by non-citizens who exercise the vote fraudulently. 

 

Analysis of Contradictions

The Paradox of Everyday Life

In the United States, identification is required for:

• Getting Government Benefits
• Receive social services
• Apply for Food Stamps
• To open bank accounts
• Getting medical care
• Donate blood
• Boarding a plane
• To rent a bike or a car
• To rent in a public place, a house or an apartment
• Register at the public library
• Check in to hotels
• Adopting a Shelter Pet
• Buy concert tickets
• Buy cigarettes or alcoholic beverages
• In short, for most daily activities and services

However, when it is proposed to require identification to vote, arguments arise that contrast sharply with these everyday realities.

The Cost Argument (The Most Blatant Lie Against ID): A Detailed Analysis

Democrats argue that "the cost of obtaining an ID is prohibitive for some communities." Let's examine this misleading statement blatantly wielded even by politicians of the highest democratic profile:

1. Actual vs. Actual Costs Perceived:
   • Most states that require ID to vote offer free IDs
   • Assistance is available in obtaining underlying documents
   • The average cost of a state ID is less than many everyday expenses considered normal
   • Many organizations provide free advice and support in the process of obtaining an ID
2. Expense Comparison:
   • An average citizen spends more on internet services
   • The cost of an ID is less than a movie ticket
   • The cost of transportation services is higher than getting an ID
   • The identification is valid for several years, diluting its effective cost

Contradictions in Public Policies

Notably, many of the same Democratic organizations, officials, and politicians that approve of requiring ID for most daily activities and services in the United States simultaneously argue that requiring ID to vote is too burdensome or restrictive.

Who Opposes the Logic of Requiring an ID to Exercise the Right to Vote?

People like former President Barack Obama, Biden, Kamala Harris, and the rest of the Democratic Party leaders have spoken out against voter ID laws as a form of voter suppression. Obama has argued that these laws disproportionately affect minority and low-income voters, who are less likely to have access to identification.

This big malicious lie in the statements of Obama, Biden, Kamala, and the rest of the democrats is strong proof of the neo-Marxist ideology they are defending. (Except only 5 members in the July 10, 2024, House vote.)

In addition to political figures, activists and organizations calling themselves civil rights advocates have played a malicious role in opposing voter ID laws. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the NAACP have been promoting false ideas of fighting voter suppression tactics that don't exist, including voter ID laws. They have challenged these voter ID laws in court and have worked to dumb down the public about a potential imaginary negative impact on marginalized communities.

What kind of impudence is it to insinuate that it is a huge financial effort to demand identification to prove that one is a citizen and not an illegal who pretends to vote without having the right?

The argument of the democrats to oppose the logic of presenting an ID to exercise the right to vote that refers to the disproportionate impact on minority and low-income voters that limits their access to the ballot box is notoriously misleading and ridiculous, lacking the most elementary common sense and real data.

First and foremost, it's important to note that most states that require ID to vote offer free IDs and help citizens obtain the necessary underlying documents. This means that the actual cost of obtaining a valid voter ID is minimal to none for most U.S. citizens. In fact, the average cost of a state ID is less than many other everyday expenses that are considered normal, such as the cost of a movie ticket or monthly internet services.

In addition, the validity of these IDs is usually several years, which further dilutes their effective cost over time. Therefore, the argument that ID requirements are a disproportionate financial burden on low-income voters is unfounded.

On the other hand, proponents of ID requirements argue that these measures help protect the integrity of the electoral process while ensuring that only eligible citizens can vote. This is particularly relevant at a time when public trust in the electoral system has been eroded by various allegations of fraud and manipulation.

From this perspective, identification requirements can be seen to strengthen citizens' confidence in the legitimacy of election results, which in turn can encourage greater participation and civic engagement.

Election authorities should actively work to ensure that all eligible citizens have easy and free access to the necessary identification documents, as well as be vigilant of non-citizens who attempt to exercise a right, they do not have that they intend to violate election laws.

Conclusion

The inconsistency in the arguments against the U.S. voter ID requirement becomes most apparent when examined in the context of:

1. The Everyday Identification Requirements
2. Real costs vs. those argued
3. Solutions already implemented in several states

Electoral integrity and access to voting are not mutually exclusive. International experience and successful state programs demonstrate that it is possible to implement ID requirements while ensuring universal access to voting. The need to establish an ID to vote is all too obvious, the question is not whether we should require identification, the real question is how we can implement these requirements in ways that strengthen our democracy while ensuring that every eligible citizen can exercise their right to vote without the worry that their vote may be defrauded by fraudulent individuals.

In conclusion, the argument that voter ID requirements have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income voters is utterly misleading. While it is important to recognize and address any potential barriers to the exercise of the right to vote, the facts show that the real cost of obtaining valid identification is minimal and that these measures can contribute to strengthening integrity and trust in the electoral process. Ultimately, the challenge lies in finding a balance between protecting the integrity of the vote and ensuring voter turnout for all eligible citizens.

The only reason to oppose requiring ID to vote is to Guarantee Fraud!